There is alway the guy who says monogamy isn't natural, that it is a social construct and that evolutionarily speaking we should be nothing but a bunch of Bonobos. As if monogamy has no science to justify or explain it.

<link>

Ancestral Monogamy Shows Kin Selection Is Key to the Evolution of Eusociality

William O. H. Hughes,1* Benjamin P. Oldroyd,2 Madeleine Beekman,2 Francis L. W. Ratnieks3

Close relatedness has long been considered crucial to the evolution of eusociality. However, it has recently been suggested that close relatedness may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of eusociality. We tested this idea with a comparative analysis of female mating frequencies in 267 species of eusocial bees, wasps, and ants. We found that mating with a single male, which maximizes relatedness, is ancestral for all eight independent eusocial lineages that we investigated. Mating with multiple males is always derived. Furthermore, we found that high polyandry (>2 effective mates) occurs only in lineages whose workers have lost reproductive totipotency. These results provide the first evidence that monogamy was critical in the evolution of eusociality, strongly supporting the prediction of inclusive fitness theory.

<link>

<link>

Of course there's always the guy who says that. Guys would much rather skirt the argument by giving themselves a biological excuse than actually confronting the truth.

Those men are like the morbidly obese people who refuse to eat less or exercise on the imaginary premise that body mass and the resulting health problems are solely determined by your genetics.

but how many people now, or in the history of the world, "are" monogamous, and what does that tell us about humanity? do you know many people who reach adulthood, choose a mate, and remain with that person until death? Generally we have serial monogamy, or promiscuity to varying degrees. To complicate this, we insist on applying moral judgements to a biological function. Yes, I know, it's a little more complicated than that, but do acknowledge, that yes, in fact, it is complicated.

Did I say "guy" I meant "people". Nowadays even women buy into idiotic, 1 semester biology, know it alls who say evolutionarily speaking we're polygamous. And that monogamy is for prudish chumps.

Clueless and useless people.

I think I didn't put the nuance out there like I should have.

There is good evolutionary reason for monogamy and it can be seen way down on the tree of life such that it includes insects.

Polyandry is not the over arching archetype that necessarily provides for the "survival of the fittest." If anyone makes that kind of arguement they are foolish and uneducated.

As far as human beings go. I haven't a clue biologically whether monogamy or polyandry will yield the best resultant progeny. Culturally though I think (serial) monogamy makes greater sense both for the individual and society as a whole.